Comments

Newt won’t implode, the LSM is going to destroy him. They are looking to even the score.

Knucklehead on November 14, 2011 at 9:57 PM

No.

The LSM never did “destroy” Sarah Palin and they did their damnedest. The reason that they couldn’t is because Palin always responded to their attacks in a rational way. They drove her negatives up – because Palin made her own minor mistakes and doesn’t have the easiest to listen to voice, and her family situation tends to get a bit circuslike – but they couldn’t destroy her.

Cain on the other hand … made grievous mistakes in handling these SH allegations – but I don’t it’s the SH allegations that turned HA readers off to Herman Cain.

It’s the fact that people are now finally realizing that we’re electing the leader of the free world here – and the Republican Party doesn’t put up a “lightweight” for that position.

If you are disenchanted with the top of the ticket, may I suggest doing what worked in 2010: holding your Representative and Senator (if you have one with a seat that is up for your State) accountable.

The 2010 movement was to get accountability back into elections and hold the feet of officeholders to the fire. Now the hard part is to continue that in 2012 not only with incumbents that have been entrenched in ‘you can’t win there’ districts, not only with those you disagree with in your own party who are fossils, but the new cadre that has a number of sell-outs in it. ALL OF THEM must face opposition. When you concentrate on the ‘big ball’ you miss the ‘small ball’ that keeps the big one going: local races. If you want to move to a more accountable government that doesn’t mean getting in the best of POTUS candidates – it means yanking the Congress away from 20th century ideas that are sinking this Nation. Your Presidential preference will have little to say on that and if he or she starts to face a hostile Congress on spending and the size of government, one that is actually able to say we must Stop The Spending and will start pulling back the money and power from major agencies, then you start to see that even the worst of RINOs isn’t a bit better than the best of the National Socialists in the Democratic Party and that the path to a smaller, more accountable government needs to be wrested from the parties. And looking at the polling, the entire leadership of the GOP is starting to look on the worst side, not the ‘almost half-way decent side’.

The concept of ‘electability’ depends on a mindset that was created in the 20th century that put Party above Nation.

I’m not voting that way as it is destroying the Nation and the Parties, both. I cannot support that. It must END. Therefore the place to go is where YOU have the most impact starting with YOURSELF. You want better candidates? Start looking for your better self that isn’t attached to the parties, the 20th century and does want the greatest personal freedom and liberty you can get via self-government and seek to pull back power from ALL OTHER GOVERNMENTS. Change doesn’t start at the top of a ticket, but in your own heart, soul and the actions YOU take. Make a difference in your own life and plan for the absolute worse: a CME that takes out all non-hardened electronics on a global basis over a period of 2-3 days. Once you get that planned for then getting the rest of your priorities in order is a piece of cake and suddenly ‘electability’ becomes a secondary factor to ‘is this candidate any good, at all?’

You want to make the 20th century stop haunting us? Stop believing that government on the outside can protect you or provide a ‘social safety net’. We have the evidence of that failure before our eyes. Think of the worst disaster that can bring all of our modern culture to an end and yet leave billions alive directly afterwards and ask yourself which is more implortant: governing yourself or national government? You will find the former creates the latter. Are you prepared for the worst? Do you still believe the lovely National government is actually going to survive if we continue what we are doing?

You want leadership?

Lead by example.

You matter, not this asshats running for office. Them you hold to YOUR standards once you finally get them set straight to survive no matter WHAT happens. Once you have prepared for the absolute worse then you can only be pleasantly surprised…. use your imagination to make sure you think of all the unpleasant stuff first, though. Then you will be the one prepared to help pick up others from lesser disasters and tumults. You will help us all by being prepared, first.

Also I like this quote that too many on here at HA forget but want to jump off that cliff anyways…

Reagan: “I’m not retreating an inch from where I was. But I also recognize this: There are some people who would have you so stand on principle that if you don’t get all that you’ve asked for from the legislature, why, you jump off the cliff with the flag flying. I have always figured that a half a loaf is better than none, and I know that in the democratic process you’re not going to always get everything you want. So, I think what they’ve misread is times in which I have compromised.”

What are people’s issues with Romney on his votes and stances since 2005 and when he began his run for the Presidency in 2007?

He has cut taxes in MA, closed loopholes and raised fees as Reagan did both, voted pro-life bills as GOV, voted and eased 2nd Amendment bills in MA See here: “Massachusetts oldest, largest and premier pro-second amendment/gun rights group, Gun owners` Action League (GOAL) stated:“The bill was the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998 (Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998). It was a reform bill totally supported by GOAL. Press and media stories around the country got it completely wrong when claimed the bill was an extension of the ‘assault weapon’ ban”, always been against illegal immigration, signed bill before it was in vogue on tuition breaks, for building the complete fence along the border, for DOMA, is for Cut, Cap, and Balance, only one from day one that has been vehemently pro expansion of the military and keeping GITMO open if not expanding it, for drilling in ANWR and investing in new technologies to get us off of foreign oil, develop energy technology like nuclear or liquefied coal, he did discuss AGW but also stated he would not spend trillions of dollars to try to fix something that MAY be man-made by 1%, and finally this is what HE proposed as a solution for MA massive health care issues (a STATE issue)http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2006/01/mitts-fit

So let’s discuss what is liberal about these stances. Many need to realize they have been wrong on Romney’s stances. These are policies that WILL attract both conservatives and independents.

Newt’s Achilles’ heel is how he reacts to attacks on his personal life. Not the baggage itself, but how he handles it when it is brought up. He has not dealt with it well in the past. And it’s a-comin’, you betcha.

There are a lot of voters out there who were either too young or were not paying attention when his antics took place, and will be hearing about all of it for the first time.

To the Reagan quote: Cool and all, but I have seen nothing from the GOP in the last 12 years that shows we’re even moving in the right direction. If one side (GOP) thinks that the status quo is perfectly fine, and the other side (Dem) thinks that we need to spend more, the compromise position is, of course, between those two.

The major issue is that the GOP is no longer conservative, and until it returns to conservatism, quote all you want, and it won’t change anything.

To the Romney piece: Nice dating, there. The main issue with Romney is that you simply cannot trust that he’ll do what he says. He panders, and obviously so. We can discuss his positions until the cows come home, but that’s not Romney’s weakness. His weakness is that you cannot trust that those ARE his positions, because he has shown a remarkable ability in the past to change his positions.

You may trust him. I do not. Nor will I. There is literally nothing you can say to me that will change this view of Romney.

Missy,
Gingrich is good but you must not have seen many of Romney’s ads as they have been devastating attacking Obama where he has run them locally in certain states.

Gingrich may also have issues with SOME social conservatives as he is on his third marriage and his admitted affair as well as his “issues” from the 90’s that the MSM will be bringing up. His turn under the media spotlight is coming as well and we ONLY have 7 weeks left.

So let’s discuss what is liberal about these stances. Many need to realize they have been wrong on Romney’s stances. These are policies that WILL attract both conservatives and independents.

g2825m on November 15, 2011 at 7:40 AM

I like how you picked his stances “since 2005”. And ignore many of his other stances as well. Romneycare. I know, I know – he is against Obamacare. But the fact that he was for Romneycare – even with the caveat of federalism – means he is for big gov’t.

Romney is not a movement conservative. He is a politician who moved a little right b/c he wanted to run for president and knew he needed to to win the primary. he has never fought for any conservative idea or been passionate about any conservative idea. Yes, he is slightly right of center. But he is nothing more than a technocrat. He will “manage” the gov’t but will not tackle any big issues or reverse the gains liberals have made in the last 4 years, let alone the last 50 years. That is the problem with Romney.

It is 100% guaranteed that he will move left from his current positions in office. the only question is how far left he will move. Nobody believes that he will work to repeal Obamacare. And it would take tremendous effort from a president to get that done – it is not going to happen otherwise. Sure, if somehow, in a dreamworld, repeal was delivered to his desk he would sign it. But he isn’t going to put forth any effort on that front.

Romney is a go along, get along guy. He is not a conservative leader. I’m not even convinced, based on his appointments in MA, that he will appoint conservatives to his cabinet or to SCOTUS. Instead we’ll get a cabinet entirely comprised of Christine Whitman types and SCOTUS picks closer to Souter than to Alito.

So yeah, Romney has posed as conservative for the last several years (or rather, as conservative as he believes he has to be to win the nomination – he tries to keep the conservative positions as quiet as possible). That’s not enough. We may end up stuck with it, but nobody is going to like it or be excited about it. He’s done nothing during his lifetime to show commitment philosophically to conservatism (instead just the opposite – running against Conservatism when running for governor and senate) and now want everyone to believe he is conservative.

One, I would say the election of 2010 was a BIG step in the right direction. Also Reagan was stating that why continue to LOSE all the time because you are seeking purity when you can gain some of what you want and continue to work that direction. This is what many of is are saying with Romney as well like Reagan did with a Democrat Congress.

Two, I dated that way specifically because I admit as a Romney supporter that prior to 2005 his positions changed, and even here I do not issues BECAUSE, I allow people to switch to OUR point of view, however after 2005 Romney’s positions have generally been what I previously posted. So I ask what is wrong with his views as they are conservative views and he has VOTED that way when it was on the line.

I am fine with looking at Romney (we have since 2007) but let’s not revisit back to 1994 as some like to do because his positions changed and he has basically been there since. Many of our favorite conservatives have changed their points of view. Shoot…Cain has done it and Gingrich just in the last 60-90 days!

Thanks for your thoughtful response and hopefully you’ll reconsider IF it is between Obama and Romney as there is TOO much riding on our country that Romney can deliver with a R Congress that Obama wont.

As a conservative very concerned about 1)this country’s fiscal downward spiral and 2) the run (not walk) towards socialism,
I want the best candidate to work with other conservatives on
both sides of the aisle to halt and reverse these trends that
I am convinced will ruin this country.

Don’t keep telling me this person should be Romney when all evidence is to the contrary.

Don’t keep telling me this person should be Romney when all evidence is to the contrary.

Amjean on November 15, 2011 at 8:37 AM

Amjean, I’ll give you previous positions by Romney before 2005, however, after that time where do you disagree with Romney on?
Any of these:
He has cut taxes in MA, closed loopholes and raised fees as Reagan did both, voted pro-life bills as GOV, voted and eased 2nd Amendment bills in MA See here: “Massachusetts oldest, largest and premier pro-second amendment/gun rights group, Gun owners` Action League (GOAL) stated:“The bill was the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998 (Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998). It was a reform bill totally supported by GOAL. Press and media stories around the country got it completely wrong when claimed the bill was an extension of the ‘assault weapon’ ban”, always been against illegal immigration, signed bill before it was in vogue on tuition breaks, for building the complete fence along the border, for DOMA, is for Cut, Cap, and Balance, only one from day one that has been vehemently pro expansion of the military and keeping GITMO open if not expanding it, for drilling in ANWR and investing in new technologies to get us off of foreign oil, develop energy technology like nuclear or liquefied coal, he did discuss AGW but also stated he would not spend trillions of dollars to try to fix something that MAY be man-made by 1%, and finally this is what HE proposed as a solution for MA massive health care issues (a STATE issue)http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2006/01/mitts-fit

For me, the way I look at it is that Romney ends up being an acceptable alternate, but I’d prefer a good “not-Romney.” Like most other people here, I imagine.

Funny, because back in 2008 I was going for Romney pretty easily until Fred Thompson showed up, and then swung back to Romney once Thompson was gone. Never really took a look at Giuliani et al.

Romney, of course, really lost a lot for me with Romneycare. I understand his 10th Amendment argument, that he could do it in one state, but it’s wrong for everyone–but that said, why would he think it’s appropriate to force people to purchase anything as a condition of being alive? Just because something is constitutional doesn’t make it right or ethical.

Romney, of course, really lost a lot for me with Romneycare. I understand his 10th Amendment argument, that he could do it in one state, but it’s wrong for everyone–but that said, why would he think it’s appropriate to force people to purchase anything as a condition of being alive? Just because something is constitutional doesn’t make it right or ethical.

Andy in Colorado on November 15, 2011 at 9:01 AM

Andy appreciate your comments. You do know that when you supported Romney in 2008 that Romneycare was in place then…so why now the lesser support because of that?

I agree with everyone on Romneycare here BUT it was also targeted to the 8% that did not have insurance NOR did it make other residents lose their private insurance. Also the 8% were able to go to the PRIVATE sector for their selections. So there are differences from Obamacare. Romney truly was trying to find a market based and driven way to help those uninsured.

I understand people will obviously vote for who they want but I’d like a fair evaluation on each of our candidates FROM OUR SIDE because I know it will not happen from the MSM. If I have ever said something incorrectly about Perry, Cain, etc I would hope someone would correct me backed by their actual quote. Romney gets plenty attributed to him that is NOT true.

However, much less a fan of hypocrisy. Some of the same folks here claiming they’d happily vote for a Billy Jeff third term in place of Obama, are swearing they’d never vote for Newt because of his past infidelities. So, it’s ok to vote for a cheater as long as he’s a D? In what universe is having a Clinton presidency a better thing than a Gingrich presidency? Everything of value accomplished during Clinton’s 8 years had its foundation in the Contract with America. Check your history, and you’ll see that the strongest leader during that time was the Speaker of the House, not the Diddler in Chief.

I am in no way cheerleading for Newt. I am asking voters to be consistent in their application of standards. If you can look past the immorality of one politician, don’t pretend to outrage over the immorality of another. If you can be an apologist for One piece of scum, don’t pretend that scumminess is why you “can’t” vote for someone else.

Character matters, absolutely. Gingrich fails in more than one category. At the same time, he is a serious historian, a policy expert, someone willing to lead from the front, willing to take risks on principle in the name of improving this nation.

I’d like not to have to consider voting for Newt Gingrich, due to his baggage. With eight years of Clinton and four of Obama under out belts, can we afford to elect another non-leader in the name of moral outrage? I’m not sure we can.

This crowd is like a WWF crowd getting all excited over fake wrestling.

Mr Gingrich is a cameleon who assumes the color of his surroundings.

He will change all of that you have suddenly admired as soon as he has another lecture planned for the rubes explaining why only he understands things.

jimw on November 14, 2011 at 11:26 PM

There does seem to be a “bandwagon” effect at work here…for awhile Perry was supposed to be the conservative Not-Romney, then Herman Cain.

I was with Perry for awhile, but if he can’t out-debate Romney or remember his own plans, Perry will get DESTROYED in debates against Obama. Perry needs to get his act together QUICKLY, or otherwise he will be swamped by Romney, Cain, and Gingrich.

The novelty of Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan was exciting for business owners, and he had been up near 30% of Republican voters in some polls, but if Republicans are about 35% of the electorate, Cain’s support represents about 10 to 11% of the electorate. The problem is, Cain’s 9% sales tax is a crusher for low- and middle-income people, who represent a huge majority of the voters. Even without the sexual-harrassment allegations, Cain was doomed to fail, and he is now damaged goods.

Gingrich is a smart and strong debater, and is now benefiting from the disillusionment of Republicans with Perry’s failure to present himself well, and the allegations against Cain. Both Gingrich and Romney are flawed candidates, in different ways: Gingrich from his prior infidelities, Romney from his self-contradiction on the health-care issue. At this point, either of them could win the nomination, but supporters of either of them need to be ready to vote for the other in the general election against Obama.

It will be a long campaign, lots of things can happen, and no one has voted in a primary yet…

Romney and Gingrich are simply McCain all over again – and the msm will slaughter them fully by Nov 2012. And I will not vote for anyone that the GOP feels/believes is entitled to the candidacy.
Rush is right – The msm/Dems tell us exactly who they are afraid of – so:
Cain/Palin 2012.
Cain silences the racist commentary headed our way during the General Election.
Palin – well we can enjoy watching their heads explode and the wonderful ‘political’ commentary such as Palin may have been a boost of political Viagra for the limp, bloodless GOP
Both of these people are not politics as usual which is exactly what we need right now. Both have taken on business and made it work. Palin, as Gov, took on her own party. And both are survivors of ‘media anal exams’. Something the current President could never do.
Debates end up with slick used car salesmen as the winners. Ideas, beliefs and what is best for America and all Americans – not just special interest groups or mega donors must be what we in the GOP look for in 2012 or not only do we lose, but America loses too.

I like Newt, but he won’t beat Obama. He has way too much baggage and will become a world class punching bag for the socialist left.

The Country always votes for likeable guys for POTUS. And, as much as I don’t like Obama, he is after all a likeable guy.

I can’t belive the Republican field is as lame as it is. Surely there is someone out there that has the style, personality, and political chops to beat Obama like a drum in light of the state of the nation. I for one am worried sick that obama will win again and the damage to the county will accellerate in his second term.

The race to converting the American public to Government dependents is going to hurt us badly if Obama gets re-elected to be sure. There are a lot of really stupid people out there, and unfortunately they vote.

Gingrich may also have issues with SOME social conservatives as he is on his third marriage and his admitted affair as well as his “issues” from the 90′s that the MSM will be bringing up. His turn under the media spotlight is coming as well and we ONLY have 7 weeks left.

g2825m on November 15, 2011 at 8:09 AM

You are correct that this will all come into play if Gingrich continues to surge, but what it really comes down to for me is this: if Newt is the last man standing against Romney, he’s my guy.

I can understand why primary-voting conservatives would support (however temporarily) Bachmann, Cain, and Perry as the Not Romney candidate since all of them skew right of Mitt on many (if not most) issues, but Gingrich? Really? Now you’re just being contrary.

I can’t say I’m wildly enthused over the possibility of a Romney presidency but at least I know a Romney presidency is a possibility. But Gingrich? Forget about his personal baggage for a moment and just focus on the various positions he’s taken over the years. While Gingrich may be a lot of things both good and bad, ‘conservative’ isn’t one of them.

Lastly, if an honorable person genuinely believes man-made climate change is a global emergency requring immediate and drastic action, then he or she would be bound by humanitarian conviction if elected president to initiate programs similar or even identical to those promoted by President Obama. So what, then, is Gingrich’s plan to save the earth from this awful threat looming at speed just over the horizon? After his cozy moment on the divan with Nancy Pelosi, Gingrich can’t just ignore the issue. It’ll be interesting to see how he handles it. Rock, meet Hard Place.

Also, what is wrong with Santorum? I don’t know a whole lot about him, but from what I do know of, he seems pretty conservative on most issues. I am starting to wonder why he hasn’t gotten his chance of being the “Not Romney” candidate.

Current tallies have Gingrich edging out Cain by just one supporter. It is interesting to note that at this point both Cain’s and Gingrich’s HA support levels individually exceed all remaining candidates (outside the two leaders), combined. As Gingrich has surged in the GOP so he has at HA also.

Please note that the tendency of the percentages going down for certain candidates is a result of more declarations of support for other contenders as opposed to withdrawal or transfer of current support. If you have a question as to where I currently you please email at the email provided below.

Thanks to our moderators for posting recent entries that have new/more people to declare their support for their favorite candidate.

PALINISTa’s (64)

Percentages might exceed 100% due to rounding. If for any reason I have you under the wrong candidates tent, I have you listed under more than one candidate, or you would like to throw your name behind a different candidate you can update me at [email protected] (three people have updated this way.
Provided as service towards eventual coalescing behind he/she who saved the people from Him Who Is No Longer Mentioned (HWINLM)…except descriptively as The Destoyer, PBHO, TOTUS.

Also, what is wrong with Santorum? I don’t know a whole lot about him, but from what I do know of, he seems pretty conservative on most issues. I am starting to wonder why he hasn’t gotten his chance of being the “Not Romney” candidate.

jeffn21 on November 15, 2011 at 12:41 PM

You see, Santorum just hasn’t learned the art of the one-liner yet. He needs to say something hilariously outrageous to get the nomination. He needs that soundbite.

You do know that when you supported Romney in 2008 that Romneycare was in place then…so why now the lesser support because of that?

g2825m on November 15, 2011 at 9:32 AM

In all honesty–I didn’t know about Romneycare. Look, I’m willing to say it’s not as bad as Obamacare, although it’s plenty bad anyway, and by all accounts has not served to decrease health care costs. But the individual mandate is utterly unacceptable. It’s wrong when Republicans support it, and it’s wrong when Democrats support it, and it’s wrong when anybody supports it. And of course I am not a fan of pretty much any part of Obamacare. I say “pretty much” because chances are good in several thousand pages there might be a single sentence that I don’t think is as bad as the rest of it.

At the end of the day, I will have no problem voting for the candidate who winds up winning the Republican nomination–even if it turned out to be Jon Huntsman or some such longshot. It’s not like in 2008, when I held my nose and semi-reluctantly voted for McCain. I will be absolutely thrilled to vote against Obama.